Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Is there a sound scientific basis for belief in neo-darwinism?

Expand Messages
  • Phil Skell
    Predictable-Alec s sophistries(a few examples, underlined) makes response a waste of time, playing his game. Phil Underlining was removed. This is a
    Message 1 of 45 , May 5 9:36 AM
      Predictable-Alec's sophistries(a few examples, underlined) makes response a
      waste of time, playing his game. Phil

      Underlining was removed. This is a re-send, with square brackets


      If Chris is suggesting that an empirical
      demonstration of major evolutionary change is necessary for the
      Theory of Evolution to be a valid scientific explanation of the
      diversity of species, then his knowledge of the modern philosophy of
      science is sadly lacking. [At a stroke he would invalidate all
      historical science such as geology and cosmology in addition to
      evolution.]


      [If Chris is suggesting that no observations *support* the Theory of
      Evolution that demonstrates either ignorance of the evidence or
      deliberate misrepresentation of it.]


      Again, Chris misrepresents the Theory of Evolution by pretending that
      the entire process is random and by ignoring the filtering and
      direction that natural selection provides. [Futhermore, his
      insistence on *empirical* verification is a demand for science to be
      limited in a way that it is not.] Finally, the analogy referred to
      his and Stephen's [demand that we observe every mutational event in
      order to conclude that mutations are random with respect to adaptive
      direction and was not meant to be an analogy in support of the Theory
      of Evolution in general] - Chris seems unable to keep in mind the
      matter in hand, but wanders off into unrelated matters thus
      deliberatly or accidentally misrepresenting my position.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Phil Skell
      Predictable-Alec s sophistries(a few examples, underlined) makes response a waste of time, playing his game. Phil Underlining was removed. This is a
      Message 45 of 45 , May 5 9:36 AM
        Predictable-Alec's sophistries(a few examples, underlined) makes response a
        waste of time, playing his game. Phil

        Underlining was removed. This is a re-send, with square brackets


        If Chris is suggesting that an empirical
        demonstration of major evolutionary change is necessary for the
        Theory of Evolution to be a valid scientific explanation of the
        diversity of species, then his knowledge of the modern philosophy of
        science is sadly lacking. [At a stroke he would invalidate all
        historical science such as geology and cosmology in addition to
        evolution.]


        [If Chris is suggesting that no observations *support* the Theory of
        Evolution that demonstrates either ignorance of the evidence or
        deliberate misrepresentation of it.]


        Again, Chris misrepresents the Theory of Evolution by pretending that
        the entire process is random and by ignoring the filtering and
        direction that natural selection provides. [Futhermore, his
        insistence on *empirical* verification is a demand for science to be
        limited in a way that it is not.] Finally, the analogy referred to
        his and Stephen's [demand that we observe every mutational event in
        order to conclude that mutations are random with respect to adaptive
        direction and was not meant to be an analogy in support of the Theory
        of Evolution in general] - Chris seems unable to keep in mind the
        matter in hand, but wanders off into unrelated matters thus
        deliberatly or accidentally misrepresenting my position.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.